Immanuel Kant's Duty-Based Ethics

Kant’s second categorical imperative is intended to be a framework to apply his ethics in a practical sense. However, it is only written to be applicable to humans and it excludes animals. Kant states, “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only” (202). First, to explain the use of the word “humanity”. Kant refers to three components to explain humanity: rationality, absolute worth, and dignity (182). Thus, Kant implies that animals are not rational; therefore, do not have absolute worth and

If a woman walks out of a fast food restaurant and sees a homeless man and gives the man her food is this considered acting in accordance with duty? What about if a woman and a child walks out of a fast food restaurant and sees a homeless man and the woman tells the child to give the man your burger? Does this considered acting from duty or in? What is acting from duty, and in acting in accordance with duty anyway? Well, Immanuel Kant (studied philosophy) had a theory “the class of actions in accordance with duty must be distinguished from the class of actions performed from duty.” In English terms when acting from duty your intention is acting morally but, when acting in accordance with duty you will do the right thing for the wrong reason.

Throughout time humans have forged sympathy for numerous animals, created from the relationships we have developed over time, bonding and interacting with them. We have a grimace look with an animal that's been physically abused or a farm animal being butchered for the meat that eventually make its to the grocery shelf. Having watched videos on supermarket suppliers we don't realize the apathy of some various meat, dairy and egg industries that settle their animals in heinous conditions and have utter negligence for their sentience. It becomes certain that these wondrous animals who provide us with an ecological resource are not respected and action is necessary to punish those individuals. As a society we sometimes disregard the death of some animals, it's unfair but we are just biased on the affection we show to certain animals.

This viewpoint advanced by Kant is further expounded upon in his essay "Our Duties to Animals". Here he explains that we have no direct duties to animals because they are not self-conscious, rational moral agents. Instead we have indirect duties to human beings in regards to animals. We should therefore not be cruel to animals because "he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men."# According to Kant, " we can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals."#

Nor could they be identical with any other abstract relation; Immanuel Kant argues that in order to behalf ethically one must possess a good will. Qualities such as courage, honesty, and persistence, are viewed as good and are common traits wished upon by many. However, these attributes can become evil and harmful if the individuals will and character are corrupt. If one does not possess a good will or have a good intention they can become wicked. To a bystander, one may look, and act as if they possess attributes that are considered moral, however hide behind this and have a immoral intent. Kant argues that a good person is someone who has a good will, recognizes their moral duty and ultimately acts in accordance to their moral obligation.

In my last project I talked about the urgent issue of bringing in CBD only medical marijuana items across state lines into Georgia. The dilemma was that the families and patients who urgently needed these products were subject to arrest because the products they obtained were brought over Alabama and neighboring states who haven’t passed the laws yet. This ties in with morals because the illegality of bringing in a harmless product to Georgia to treat little kids with seizures and much more is absurd and subject to ethical debate in my opinion. My own view is that it should not be illegal to transport CBD products over state lines if it is for the benefit and well-being of people with severe illness. Immanuel Kant and James Mill’s theories of the categorical imperative and utilitarianism each can be applied to this ethical debate in varying ways.

In the late 18th century one of the most influential philosophers by the name of Immanuel Kant introduced the third major ethical philosophy, Deontology. The basis behind Deontology is that people are duty bound to act morally by certain standards despite the outcome. Determining whether a person’s actions are morally right involves look at the intent of the actions. Like other ethic theories, Deontologist applies the golden rule of treating other people the way you would want them to treat you. Deontology can be broken down into three different theories: agent-centered, patient centered, and contractualist. Each branch of Deontology can be traced back in some way to Immanuel Kant. Can Deontology be applied to today’s society?

Interesting case you brought up as discrimination is always a sensitive topic so understanding that while it might not be discrimination based on the definition it still is not ethical. I also enjoyed your response about how you would question her ethics by including Kant's theory on ethics. I took a philosophy class freshman year so I think it is interesting how it makes its way back to a core business class it really shows how big a part ethics play in the business world.

Nice post! I also agreed with Kant's ethics. The idea of acting on sense of duty, and how the intentions are important to determinate the moral value of an action. The consequences for Kant may be not important because the origin of all actions are the intentions. The consequences or the out come of an action should not matter in the moral part because the intention behind is the sufficient enough to help determine the value. Kant's ideas are well argued with example, and this system seems to be the most rational from all the systems that we have seen in this

Kant argues that mere conformity with the moral law is not sufficient for moral goodness. I will argue that Kant is right. In this essay I will explain why Kant distinguishes between conforming with the moral law and acting for the sake of the moral law, and what that distinction means to Kant, before arguing why Kant was right.

The disparity and divide among various levels of the society locally and globally are rooted in many factors. Unfortunately, growing effects of globalization appear to widen the abyss between the rich and poor, leaving no hopes that eventually the world could collectively and uniformly prosper and poverty would be completely eradicated. The natural resources are not evenly distributed on the various continents on the planet Earth. While some countries enjoy the wealth and prosperity as a result of abundant resources, such oil and natural gas reserves, others are stricken by natural disasters and persistent droughts, having no access to clean water, fertile soil, or any sustainable means of existence. Blaming eruption of violence and flourishing

Kant being the deontologist he is, has an ethical view based on duty; that human act by a moral system from our duties and obligations. Kant claims that the only thing that intrinsically valuable is good will. Morality has to focus on the idea of having a good will; it’s the unconditional good.

According to Kant, We have these absolute duties to ourselves and these duties to oneself become the supreme principle of all duties. Therefore, these supreme self-duties are the reason why moral ethics exist, and without our duties to oneself there would be no other duties, nor would we, as a species, survive at all. However, these self-regarding duties can be very contradicting, but can help us understand the bigger picture of the categorical imperative.

I will begin by saying that according to Kant, consequences doesn’t have any connection with our deeds: right or wrong. Morality requires us to do the right things in life: it is a command known as the imperative. This, indeed, forces me to follow what Kant said: doing the good deeds ignoring the thought of what will be the result. This ethics of Kant rather wants me to save the lives in the ship of my other nine cruise worker. This dilemma forced me to think about my morals in life of being good.

Kantian ethics emphasizes on two conditions for an action to be morally good. The first, that an action only has moral worth if it is done for the sake of duty. The second is that an action is considered right if its maxim can be willed as a universal law. Kantian ethics then is working on the basis of duty and universality. In failing to recognize the multiple aspects of morality, Kantian ethics shows inadequacy as a moral theory. (Hinman, 2008)